[Senate Hearing 117-453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-453

                          PENDING LEGISLATION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
                   PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on


		S. 180		S. 1459		S. 1631
		S. 528		S. 1493		S. 2130
		S. 607		S. 1538		S. 2433
		S. 1214		S. 1583		S. 2524
		S. 1411		S. 1589
 
                               __________

                            OCTOBER 19, 2021
                               __________


                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                  

                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
46-060 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023  



               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
                                 ------                                

           Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                     CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Chair

RON WYDEN                            MIKE LEE
MARTIN HEINRICH                      JAMES E. RISCH
MAZIE K. HIRONO                      STEVE DAINES
ANGUS S. KING, JR.                   LISA MURKOWSKI
MARK KELLY                           JAMES LANKFORD
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER                 BILL CASSIDY
                                     CINDY HYDE-SMITH

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                     David Brooks, General Counsel
                Peter Stahley, Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
        John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, Subcommittee Chair and a U.S. 
  Senator from Nevada............................................     1
Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 
  from Utah......................................................     4
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............     5
Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana................     6
Hyde-Smith, Hon. Cindy, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi..........    70

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel I

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from Rhode Island.......    70
Padilla, Hon. Alex, a U.S. Senator from California...............    74

                                Panel II

Feldgus, Dr. Steve, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Lands and 
  Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior...........    75
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest 
  Service........................................................   107

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Allain, R.L. ``Bret'':
    Letter for the Record........................................     8
American Canoe Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   186
American Canoe Association et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   187
American Forest Resource Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   189
American Rivers:
    Letter for the Record........................................   193
American Sportfishing Association et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    10
American Whitewater:
    Letter for the Record........................................   194
Arizona Cattle Growers' Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   200
Arizona Farm Bureau Federation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   201
Association of O&C Counties:
    Letter for the Record........................................   202
Assumption Parish Police Jury:
    Resolution in support of the RISEE Act, dated March 10, 2021.    12
Back Country Horsemen of Missoula:
    Letter for the Record........................................   337
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (Montana Chapter):
    Letter for the Record........................................   205
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (Oregon Chapter):
    Letter for the Record........................................   207
Backcountry Sled Patriots:
    Letter for the Record........................................   209
Bayou Industrial Group:
    Letter for the Record........................................    13
Bayou Lafourche Fresh Water District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    15
Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited:
    Letter for the Record........................................   210
Big Rock Community Services District:
    Letter for the Record........................................   160
Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project Steering Committee:
    Letter for the Record........................................   212
BlueRibbon Coalition/ShareTrails:
    Letter for the Record........................................   214
Boice, Court:
    Letter for the Record........................................   216
Bosco, Hon. Douglas H.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   217
Bourriaque, Ryan:
    Letter for the Record........................................    16
Brock Smith, David:
    Letter for the Record dated September 23, 2015...............   157
    Letter for the Record dated November 2, 2021.................   395
Business for Montana's Outdoors:
    Letter for the Record........................................   222
California State Senate and California State Assembly:
    Senate Joint Resolution No. 3, dated July 6, 2015............   132
California Trout:
    Letter for the Record........................................   224
Cameron Parish Police Jury:
    Letter for the Record........................................    20
Cameron Parish Port, Harbor and Terminal District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    21
Capital Trail Vehicle Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   226
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
    Opening Statement............................................     6
Cave Junction (OR) City Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   168
Chenier Plain Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority:
    Letter for the Record........................................    23
Chugach Alaska Corporation:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   220
Citizens for Balanced Use:
    Letter of opposition to S. 1493..............................   227
    Letter for the Record dated August 19, 2020..................   228
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions:
    Letter for the Record........................................    24
(The) `Club':
    Letter for the Record........................................   398
Clune, Jay, President of Nicholls State University:
    Letter for the Record........................................    49
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana:
    Letter for the Record........................................    25
Coastal States Organization:
    Letter for the Record........................................    26
Colorado River Indian Tribes:
    Letter for the Record........................................   173
(The) Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead 
  Nation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   230
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians:
    Letter for the Record........................................   149
(The) Conservation Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   231
Conservation Lands Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   233
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Crescent City-Del Norte (CA) Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record dated September 28, 2015...............   163
    Letter for the Record dated October 15, 2021.................   234
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors:
    Letter for the Record........................................   151
Doyon, Limited:
    Letter for the Record........................................   236
Dufrechou, Carlton:
    Letter for the Record........................................    28
Elk Valley Rancheria, California:
    Letter for the Record dated August 7, 2015...................   147
    Letter for the Record dated June 1, 2021.....................   237
Eventgroove:
    Letter for the Record........................................   239
Feldgus, Steve:
    Opening Statement............................................    75
    Written Testimony............................................    78
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   179
Forest Access for All:
    Letter for the Record........................................   240
French, Chris:
    Opening Statement............................................   107
    Written Testimony............................................   109
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   183
Friede, Curtis S.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   241
Friends of Nevada Wilderness:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   242
Fugro USA, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    29
Gasquet Community Services District:
    Letter for the Record dated September 21, 2015...............   162
    Letter for the Record dated October 11, 2021.................   245
Gastineau, Ron:
    Letter for the Record........................................   159
Gold Beach (OR) City Council:
    Letter for the Record dated May 20, 2016.....................   153
    Resolution R1516-16, dated June 13, 2016.....................   166
Greater Lafourche Port Commission:
    Letter for the Record........................................    30
Greater New Orleans, Inc. and the Coalition for Coastal 
  Resilience and Economy:
    Letter for the Record........................................    32
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
Hellgate Hunters & Anglers:
    Letter for the Record........................................   246
Henson, Paul:
    Letter for the Record........................................   139
Hewitt, Sharon et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    51
High Divide Collaborative:
    Letter for the Record........................................   247
Hopkins, Mike:
    Letter for the Record........................................   249
Hyde-Smith, Hon. Cindy:
    Opening Statement............................................    70
International Mountain Bicycling Association et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   250
Jackson County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   252
Jefferson Chamber:
    Letter for the Record........................................    33
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   257
    Packet of letters and resolutions in support of the 
      Southwestern Oregon Mineral Withdrawal.....................   261
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   254
Keith, Robert:
    Letter for the Record........................................   307
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center:
    Letter for the Record dated October 18, 2021.................   308
    Letter for the Record dated October 29, 2021.................   311
Koniag:
    Letter for the Record........................................   317
LA 1 Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    34
Lafourche Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    35
Lafourche Parish Government:
    Letter for the Record........................................    36
Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    37
Lander County (NV) Building Department:
    Letter for the Record........................................   318
La Paz County (AZ):
    Statement for the Record.....................................   170
League of Women Voters of California:
    Letter for the Record........................................   319
League of Women Voters of Oregon:
    Letter for the Record........................................   321
Lee, Hon. Mike:
    Opening Statement............................................     4
Lewis and Clark County (MT) Board of Supervisors:
    Letter for the Record........................................   322
Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board:
    Letter for the Record........................................    38
Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    40
Love, Tim G.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   324
Magee, Tanner D.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    42
Malek, Sue:
    Letter for the Record........................................   327
Manji, Neil:
    Letter for the Record........................................   143
McClaran, Mitchel P.:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   328
McGuire, Mike:
    Letter for the Record dated September 25, 2015...............   134
    Letter for the Record dated October 18, 2021 with attached 
      resolution.................................................   332
McInnis, Guy S.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    44
McKee, Hon. Daniel J. and Hon. Charles Baker:
    Letter for the Record........................................    73
Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................   336
Missoula County (MT) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   339
Montana Association of Christians:
    Letter for the Record........................................   340
Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission:
    Resolution on the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project, 
      dated May 12, 2016.........................................   341
Montana Forest Collaboration Network:
    Letter for the Record........................................   343
Montana Mountain Bike Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   345
Montana Outfitters and Guides Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   348
Montana Snowmobile Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   349
Montana Trout Unlimited:
    Letter for the Record dated September 15, 2020...............   351
    Letter for the Record dated October 15, 2021.................   353
Montana Wildlife Federation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   355
Montana Wool Growers Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   357
Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    45
Morganza Action Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    46
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   359
National Marine Manufacturers Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    47
Native Fish Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   360
Nordhagen, Daren:
    Letter for the Record........................................   361
North Coast Regional Water Control Board:
    Letter for the Record........................................   145
North Lafourche Levee District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    50
Old Harbor Native Corporation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   363
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:
    Letter for the Record........................................   141
Outdoor Alliance:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   365
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations:
    Letter for the Record dated September 28, 2015...............   155
    Letter for the Record dated October 15, 2021.................   381
Padilla, Hon. Alex:
    Opening Statement............................................    74
Parish Presidents of Louisiana Association and Parishes 
  Advocating for Coastal Endurance:
    Letter for the Record........................................    52
Pew Charitable Trusts:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   382
Plaquemines Association of Business and Industry:
    Letter for the Record........................................    53
Ports Association of Louisiana:
    Letter for the Record........................................    54
Powell County (MT) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   385
Professional Wilderness Outfitters Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   386
Prokop, Stephen:
    Letter for the Record........................................   136
Ravalli County (MT) Collaborative:
    Letter for the Record........................................   387
Restore or Retreat, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    55
Restore the Mississippi River Delta Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    56
Richard, M. Larry:
    Letter for the Record........................................    58
River Region Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    59
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   389
Rosen, Hon. Jacky:
    Statement for the Record.....................................     3
Sanders County (MT) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   391
Save the Redwoods League:
    Letter for the Record........................................   392
Seeley Lake Community Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   393
Seeley Lake Driftriders:
    Letter for the Record........................................   394
Smith River Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   396
    Response to USFS comments, dated October 19, 2021............   397
South Central Industrial Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    60
Stegmaier, John:
    Letter for the Record........................................   358
St. John the Baptist Parish:
    Letter for the Record........................................    61
St. Tammany Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    62
St. Tammany Corporation/St. Tammany Parish Development District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    63
St. Tammany Parish Council:
    Resolution No. C-6499, dated August 5, 2021..................    64
St. Tammany Parish Government:
    Letter for the Record........................................    66
Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government:
    Letter for the Record........................................    67
Thompson, David A.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   219
Trout Unlimited:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   399
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Assistant 
  Secretary--Indian Affairs:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   235
White, Tim:
    Letter for the Record........................................   405
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon:
    Opening Statement............................................    70
Wild and Scenic Rivers:
    Letter for the Record........................................   406
(The) Wilderness Society:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   417
Wild Montana:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   407
Wild Rivers, Wild Brews Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................   164
Winter Wildlands Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   423
Yavapai Cattle Growers Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   424
Zeringue, Jerome ``Zee'':
    Letter for the Record........................................    69

----------
The text for each of the bills that were addressed in this hearing can 
be found on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
hearings/2021/10/public-lands-forests-
mining-subcommittee-legislative-hearing

 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2021

                               U.S. Senate,
 Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:41 p.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Catherine 
Cortez Masto, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto [presiding]. This hearing will come to 
order. We have a full agenda this afternoon with 14 bills. The 
agenda before us represents priorities of members on both sides 
of the aisle, including several members of the Committee. Some 
of these bills address broad policy issues, such as oil and gas 
leasing policy and grazing management, while others are state-
specific, including several conservation designations and land 
conveyances to local governments. Those of us who have worked 
on large public land bills understand the challenges of trying 
to balance the many different priorities for use of our public 
lands. I understand that many of these proposals have been 
under discussion for years.
    After members of the Committee have an opportunity to 
provide opening statements, we will hear from Senators 
Whitehouse and Padilla about their bills on the agenda. After 
their statements, we will then hear from representatives of the 
Department of the Interior and Forest Service, who will provide 
the Administration's position on these bills. I hope to use 
this hearing to get information from the federal agencies and 
other affected stakeholders so that we can work with the bill 
sponsors and other members of the Committee to make any 
necessary adjustments and get these bills ready for full 
committee markup.
    I am the sponsor of two of the bills on today's agenda--S. 
607, the End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing Act and S. 1583, a 
bill to extend the authorization of the Lake Tahoe Restoration 
Act.
    Regarding S. 607, the End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing 
Act, this bill establishes a process by which the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) shall assess federal land parcels' oil 
and gas development potential before offering those lands for 
lease. They will assess that before offering the lands for 
lease and then prohibit leasing on any lands determined to have 
low or no potential development. The bill does not apply to 
existing leases and applies only to future leasing decisions. 
As a result, this bill would benefit the management of our 
public lands by accomplishing the following: by excluding lands 
with no potential from leasing, it would largely end the 
practice of speculative leasing by encouraging both BLM and oil 
and gas companies to focus exploration and drilling activities 
on lands with higher development potential. It allows the BLM 
to prioritize areas without development potential for other 
uses, such as conservation, grazing, mining, recreation, or 
renewable energy development, and it reduces costs associated 
with preparing low-
potential lands for auctions and then issuing and monitoring 
those non-producing leases. This bill is a common-sense, 
middle-of-the-ground approach, as it allows lands to be 
periodically reassessed for their development potential should 
new data or technologies prove an area's development viability.
    Now, regarding S. 1583, this bill simply extends the 
existing programs under the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for ten 
more years. This bill does not make any new authorizations or 
modifications from when the act was last reauthorized. The 
programs under the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act are crucial to 
preserving the lake's pristine environmental qualities. It 
includes programs for wildfire risk reduction and forest 
management, aquatic invasive species control, storm water 
management, erosion projects, and for the Lahontan Cutthroat 
Trout Recovery program.
    I am also a sponsor of S. 1411. This is Senator Rosen's 
Lander County lands bill. This bill conveys certain federal 
lands to Lander County to improve local airports, provide 
access to water resources, and establish local tourism and 
economic development opportunities. It also releases certain 
wilderness study area acreage while designating just over 
14,000 acres of wilderness. Senator Rosen is attending another 
hearing right now, so she will be unable to attend, but we will 
include her statement in the hearing for the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Rosen follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. At this time, I would like to 
recognize Senator Lee for his opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has long been an 
active Subcommittee, and I appreciate your diligence in 
reviewing pending legislation.
    Today, my bill, the State Grazing Management Authority Act, 
will be heard, and I would like to speak to the impetus and to 
the potential impact of this important legislation. The Federal 
Government owns 47 percent of all the land in the western 
United States. In the state of Utah, where I live, and the 
state I represent, it is closer to 67 percent. It is about two-
thirds. However, Utah's most productive lands in terms of 
forage, production, and agricultural value happen to be owned 
by private individuals. Many attribute the lower productivity 
levels that we see on federal lands to the structure of grazing 
permit regulations and NEPA regulations that simply do not 
allow for agile changes to be made based on conditions on the 
ground as they change. Often, the permittees are required to 
graze forage the same way, year after year, without the ability 
to alter the season of use. This is something that one would 
ordinarily do, but because of the way the federal system works, 
it is difficult to impossible for it to run this way. That has 
an impact, and it is not a positive one. In fact, this can have 
detrimental impacts on the plant life that we rely on for 
providing protection from erosion and preserving rangelands and 
preserving riparian areas.
    These inflexible regulations and other requirements imposed 
by the Federal Government often outcompete the good intentions 
of federal employees who are tasked with managing the land. 
However, in Rich County, located in southeastern Utah, we have 
seen some pretty impressive results from alternative methods of 
management. Most grazing lands in the area are managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. As with most 
grazing permits, the lands are grazed typically from May 
through September. Adjacent to these lands is the Deseret Land 
and Livestock, or DLL, Ranch. Since the 1980's, this ranch has 
used a prescriptive grazing strategy of ``rest-rotation.'' 
Under the system, up to 20 percent of the pastures receive a 
full year of rest, allowing for greater forage recovery. And 
here is the kicker--the stocking rate on these private lands is 
nearly double that of other nearby allotments. Essentially, 
that means that the land can sustain double the number of 
animals. This innovation, brought about by local ingenuity, has 
increased economic output and also the health of the rangeland.
    This work and these results led to a massive collaboration 
between 38 producers on 10 neighboring allotments combining to 
create Three Creeks Grazing, LLC. This group has worked to 
improve private, federal, and state lands by implementing 
similar grazing techniques, techniques that would never be 
possible if they were operating on federal land alone. Beyond 
this, the improved range conditions have led to a greater 
presence of wild game and fish, while preserving multiple-use 
mandates and protections. So as demonstrated here by this 
example, our rangelands are capable of so much more. We simply 
need to allow the flexibilities for innovation to spring up 
from where the work is actually done, and my bill would do just 
that. The State Grazing Management Authority Act would pilot a 
program to study how states might produce a healthier range, 
increase the interest that is out there on federal land, and 
better meet the needs of livestock producers, based on the way 
they actually operate. This legislation would be a win for the 
agricultural community, it would be a win for the Federal 
Government, and it would be a win for the environment.
    So thanks again, Senator Cortez Masto, for chairing this 
hearing, and I thank the witnesses for their presence today and 
look forward to hearing from them. Thanks.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    Now we will allow our opening statements for any Committee 
members.
    Senator Heinrich, do you have an opening statement?

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chair Cortez Masto, for 
holding today's legislative hearing and for including a 
longstanding issue of importance to many New Mexicans.
    The Buffalo Tract Protection Act would permanently withdraw 
four small parcels of BLM land near Placitas, New Mexico from 
mineral development. For more than a decade, the BLM has 
considered a gravel mine on a piece of land called the Buffalo 
Tract. This area has seen rapid residential growth and an 
increasing need for outdoor recreational space. The land in 
question also serves as a critical corridor for wildlife moving 
between the region's mountain ranges. This region is already 
home to three other active gravel mines, and local opposition 
to a new mine is unified. The two neighboring pueblos, the 
Pueblo of Santa Ana and the Pueblo of San Felipe, along with 
the county, the nearest municipality, the neighborhood in 
question--which this is actually quite surrounded by 
residential neighborhood and homeowners' associations as well 
as local residents--all oppose new mineral development in the 
neighborhood. In fact, I am not aware of any subdivision of 
local government that supports gravel mining in this location.
    This is clearly just the wrong place for additional gravel 
development. We need to permanently protect this area for the 
benefit of wildlife, recreational opportunity, and public 
health, and it is time to put an end to this years-long fight 
and withdraw these small parcels from any future mineral 
development.
    Thank you to Chair Cortez Masto and the entire Subcommittee 
for holding this important hearing, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Any other Committee members want to do an opening?
    Senator Cassidy.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

    Senator Cassidy. Madam Chair, thank you for the hearing and 
for including S. 2130 on the agenda--protecting and increasing 
revenues under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or 
GOMESA, that is available to Louisiana and that other Gulf 
States share for coastal restoration and hurricane and flood 
protection, which is essential to restore our eroding coast. A 
coastline, by the way, eroding in part due to levees built 
along the Mississippi for the benefit of inland ports in other 
states. And we bear the brunt.
    According to the Department of the Interior, from Fiscal 
Year 2016 through Fiscal Year 2020, Interior collected almost 
$21 billion in offshore receipts from royalties, rents, bonus 
bids, inspection fees, and other revenues. During that time, 
$757 million was shared with Gulf States, which is just 3.6 
percent of offshore revenues generated. This is not equitable, 
certainly not in comparison with what states get for onshore 
revenue, and does not acknowledge the national significance of 
the Gulf region meeting the nation's energy needs. Bipartisan 
legislation introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and me 
fixes this inequity and improves the existing revenue sharing 
program for states producing offshore energy revenue. The bill 
also creates a new national revenue sharing program from 
offshore wind energy generation and provides dedicated, 
sustainable funding to the National Oceans and Coastal Security 
Fund (NOCSF).
    I thank Senators Hyde-Smith, Heinrich, and King, who are 
all co-sponsors of the bill, and several of our Senate 
colleagues not on this Committee have also endorsed.
    Specifically, S. 2130, or the RISEE Act, removes an 
existing cap authorized in GOMESA on the amount of dollars 
shared among four Gulf States as well as the cap on funds 
available for the Land and Water Conservation Fund's State Side 
Assistance Program. It increases the percentage of offshore 
revenue shared by the Gulf States. It protects offshore revenue 
from sequestration and makes additional leases eligible for 
revenue sharing in the future. And the reason I think Senator 
Whitehouse is in favor, in part, the bill also creates a fourth 
GOMESA equity to provide immediate funding to the National 
Oceans and Coastal Security Fund and as previously mentioned, 
creates a new national revenue sharing program for states 
hosting offshore wind energy generation. The bill is supported 
by more than 50 national, state, and local organizations, from 
local chambers to levee districts, environmental organizations 
such as the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, the Audubon Society, sporting groups such as the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the Theodore Roosevelt 
Conservation Partnership, the American Sports Fishing 
Association, and Ducks Unlimited, along with associations 
representing all forms of energy production, as well as 25 
Louisiana state legislators and parish leaders and governors, 
including Governor Edwards from Louisiana, Governor Baker from 
Massachusetts, and Governor McKee from Rhode Island.
    In a letter I received from those environmental groups 
mentioned above, they say, ``By investing coastal energy 
revenues in coastal protection, restoration, and resilience, 
the RISEE Act will bring vital resources to mitigate the 
mounting hazards, risks, and impacts coastal communities 
face.''
    By the way, I ask that unanimous consent be given to enter 
these letters into the record.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
    [The letters referred to follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cassidy. In the last two years, Louisiana has been 
hit by several hurricanes and tropical storms, including 
Hurricane Laura, which was the most powerful storm to make 
landfall in Louisiana, and most recently Hurricane Ida, with 
recorded wind gusts of more than 220 miles per hour. These 
storms exacerbate a land-loss crisis that threatens ecosystems, 
communities, local economies, ways of life, and increases the 
risk of flooding. Coastal communities use the resources from 
offshore revenue sharing to restore our coastlines. By the way, 
the Louisiana State Constitution requires that this money be 
used to rebuild these coastlines.
    This is good legislation that I encourage my colleagues to 
support. Thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Hyde-Smith.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CINDY HYDE-SMITH, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    As a member from a Gulf Coast State, I am thankful to have 
the opportunity to talk about this very important bill that 
would benefit not just my state, but all Gulf Coast States that 
are currently recovering from recent disasters such as 
Hurricane Ida. As my colleague just mentioned, Senate 2130, or 
the RISEE Act, would establish several dedicated streams of 
funding for coastal infrastructure and resiliency in order to 
protect vulnerable communities and businesses most affected by 
sea-level rise and coastal erosion. The bill makes improvements 
to the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, and also 
dedicates a portion of wind energy revenues to that fund. This 
bill also provides important reforms to the Gulf of Mexico 
Energy Security Act, GOMESA, to allow for a greater state share 
of revenue from Gulf energy production. It also lifts the caps 
on the State Side portion of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and directs a portion of funds to the NOCSF.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and urge my 
colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation, 
and I certainly appreciate the work that has been done on this. 
It is really needed in our Gulf States.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Now we will turn to Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Alex 
Padilla. Welcome to the Committee.
    Senator Whitehouse, you are invited to make your statement.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND

    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I am delighted to 
have the chance to be here before the Subcommittee, and I am 
delighted to be recommending this legislation developed with 
your member and my friend, Senator Cassidy.
    As I think the entire Committee knows, the Biden 
Administration has pledged to develop 30 gigawatts of offshore 
wind, and almost all of that development is going to take place 
along the northern Atlantic coast. So states like Rhode Island, 
and frankly from Maine all the way down through the Carolinas, 
have a very strong interest in making sure that as this 
proceeds, there is fairness and revenue to the host states that 
will be supporting this offshore wind development. At the 
moment, if we were to develop an oil and gas fixture offshore, 
we would fit into an existing, robust, well-
established revenue template for the revenues associated with 
that facility. When it is offshore wind, it is new. And so we 
are at a very distinct disadvantage as those neighboring 
states, as offshore wind develops, compared to the states that 
have oil and gas facilities offshore. So point one is that we 
need to provide that fairness and that revenue to the adjoining 
states.
    Point two is that coasts and oceans are going to be the 
focus of much of our attention in the years ahead as enormous 
changes come to oceans and coasts, primarily because of climate 
change. I am a big fan of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
but my friend Senator Heinrich has been with me on the Floor, 
and Senator Cassidy has been very active on this as well. The 
Land and Water Conservation Fund is very good for upland 
projects and it is very good for freshwater projects. It is not 
helpful or rarely helpful for coastal or offshore preservation. 
That is really overlooked. And so what we do with some of this 
new funding is to try to stand oceans and coasts to a place 
that is more even with upland and freshwater through the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, and that is by growing the 
National OCSF, the Oceans and Coast Security Fund. So this will 
do that by sending 37.5 percent of offshore wind revenues to 
that fund, but that is going to take a while to stand up, and 
in the meantime we also add 12.5 percent of GOMESA funds to 
that fund.
    The third thing that this does, consistent with the desire 
to develop more clean, renewable offshore wind, is that it 
would remove a really bleak disincentive that Gulf States would 
face. By bringing the two funding platforms level, a Gulf State 
can say, ``Well, I can license offshore wind and I can license 
the existing oil and gas and I can make that decision on the 
merits because the dollars are the same.'' Absent this bill, 
those states will get 37.5 percent for oil and gas development 
and they will get completely skunked for offshore wind. It is 
completely inconsistent with President Biden's goals to have 
that disincentive persist.
    The last thing is that the Gulf Coast--this is a bipartisan 
bill and we want to keep it a bipartisan bill--and the Gulf 
Coast gets some value out of this. It gets lifts in the caps 
that otherwise would stop the formula money that goes to 
various uses. It lifts from 37.5 to 50 percent, the amount of 
money that goes to the states as it would for the offshore 
wind. They stay in parity. And as the troubles that we all know 
we are facing--the oil and gas industry--come at us, I think it 
is important for these states to get this additional revenue to 
help them deal with the transition. So I support those programs 
as an important part of the deal. We need to help these states 
stabilize revenues that will fall and we need to help these 
states, including mine in this case, fund coastal needs that 
will rise.
    So I am very grateful to Senator Cassidy for his work on 
all of this. I think we have a terrific compromise here, and I 
think it solves two really vital problems that are 
environmental problems. One, it is really hard to get offshore 
wind going in the Gulf if you are giving those states zero 
while you are still rewarding oil and gas development. And two, 
it is really hard to deal with the coastal and oceans issues 
that are so pressing right now without robbing from the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, which already is fully subscribed, 
and that is why you need the funding to go to this new vehicle. 
And I want to thank Senator Heinrich for joining us in all of 
this. I know his state is much squarer than mine and has no 
coast, but he does love the oceans too and he understands the 
importance of this.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla.
    Senator Whitehouse. Oh, may I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter from my Governor and from the Governor of the State of 
Massachusetts be included in the record?
    Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
    [The letter mentioned by Senator Whitehouse follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chair Cortez Masto and Ranking 
Member Lee, for allowing me to join you today to testify on my 
bill, the PUBLIC Lands Act, which would expand protections for 
over one million acres of federal public lands in California. 
This is one of the first bills I introduced upon joining the 
U.S. Senate. The public lands and natural spaces in California, 
I am sure, on your prior visits, you would agree, are some of 
the greatest national treasures, from the San Gabriel Mountains 
in southern California, to the Carrizo Plain in central 
California, to the northern California Redwoods. These lands 
are not just precious for their beauty, but also for their 
biodiversity and the role that they play in keeping our 
environment a healthy one.
    The four points I want to make today speak to science, 
equity, natural disasters, and local support. First, the 
science. The science is clear. To adequately address the 
climate crisis, we must protect natural spaces. The PUBLIC 
Lands Act will help California and the nation meet our stated 
benchmark goals of conserving 30 percent of lands and 30 
percent of waters by the year 2030. Protected lands are our 
best natural weapon for capturing carbon from the atmosphere, 
reducing emissions, and ensuring clean air for all. With the 
new wilderness designations called for in this bill, we can 
restore forests and rivers that are home to many endangered 
species while also helping species adapt to our changing 
climate.
    Second, as we protect the environment, this bill will also 
promote equity. Public lands are exactly that--they belong to 
the public. But as we all know, too many children, too many 
families, especially in communities of color, grow up without 
sufficient access to outdoor spaces and opportunities. 
Nationwide, nearly three-quarters of people of color live in 
nature-deprived communities. I'll give the biggest example of 
them all--Los Angeles County, the most populous county in 
America, and one of the most densely populated regions of the 
country, has one of the lowest rates of park access at only 3.3 
acres of park space per 1,000 people. That is half of the 
median in other high-density cities. We need to create improved 
recreational access for the more than 17 million people who 
live in the greater Los Angeles area and for them to share in 
our state's incredible natural surroundings. The PUBLIC Lands 
Act would expand protections for public lands and rivers near 
communities that have limited access to parks and the outdoors. 
I'll give you another specific example in the bill. This 
legislation would support recreation along the urban section of 
the San Gabriel River, which runs through the heart of the 
park-poor San Gabriel Valley. On the Central Coast, this bill 
would increase accessibility to world-class nature for the 
communities of Santa Maria, Fillmore, and others nearby that 
have limited access to the outdoors.
    Third, this legislation would increase the Federal 
Government's support for wildfire management. We know how 
critical that is. And for drinking water conservation, and we 
know how critical that is throughout the West, not just in 
California. This summer alone--you saw the news--too many 
families were forced to flee their homes or breathe in smoke 
and ash because of yet another year of record wildfires. 
Wildfire mitigation and healthy forest management have always 
been of critical importance to Californians, but they are even 
more important today, given our changing climate. That is why 
this bill has deeply considered the issue of fire and includes 
provisions to improve wildfire management. No provision of this 
legislation undermines or prohibits appropriate fuels 
management by the appropriate federal agencies. I also want to 
highlight that fire suppression is allowed in every designation 
type in this bill.
    Severe droughts are also threatening our water supply, and 
the PUBLIC Lands Act would permanently safeguard critical water 
sources statewide. The bill would protect over 500 miles of 
free-flowing rivers and streams, and it would expand 
protections for critical watersheds such as the Angeles 
National Forest, which provides a full third of Los Angeles 
County's drinking water--again, a full third of the drinking 
water for the most populous county in America. And climate 
change is the reason we face these extreme weather events and 
natural disasters more severely and more frequently. This bill 
would help us fight the underlying causes of climate change and 
address the challenges that we are facing today.
    Finally, I want to highlight the local support for this 
bill in California. In fact, this measure is the result of 
years of community engagement and enjoys the support of 
hundreds of local advocates, business leaders, and community 
groups who have developed these proposals from the ground up. 
Communities in California are asking us to preserve their 
backyards for future generations. We need this investment to 
support a sustainable future in California, and I look forward 
to working with this Committee to swiftly advance this measure 
to the full Senate for consideration. Now is the time to 
protect California's wild spaces for generations to come.
    Thank you again for allowing me to address you today.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, both.
    Now we will move to the witness panel to receive their 
testimony on the bills before us today.
    First, we will hear from Dr. Steve Feldgus, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management at the 
U.S. Department of the Interior, and then after Dr. Feldgus, we 
will hear from Mr. Christopher French, the Deputy Chief for the 
National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service.
    Dr. Feldgus.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE FELDGUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                            INTERIOR

    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you, Chairwoman Cortez Masto, Ranking 
Member Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Steve 
Feldgus. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 
Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior. Thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss the legislation before us 
today. Several of these bills include provisions that align 
with important Administration priorities, and we look forward 
to continuing to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee on 
these bills. I will briefly touch on the ten bills on the 
agenda concerning the Department of the Interior.
    S. 180, the Buffalo Tract Protection Act, would withdraw 
about 4,200 acres of BLM land near Placitas, New Mexico from 
mineral development. S. 180 aligns with the Administration's 
conservation goals and the Department supports the bill.
    S. 528, the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation 
Act, proposes to convey approximately 4,800 acres of BLM-
managed land to La Paz County, Arizona at fair market value. 
The Department supports the sponsor's stated goals of promoting 
solar energy development, but has some concerns with the 
approach of the bill. We would welcome the opportunity to work 
with the sponsors on a few modifications, including the 
exclusion of an important electric transmission corridor from 
the conveyance.
    S. 607, the End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing Act, 
generally prohibits the BLM from leasing oil and gas resources 
on lands that have been identified as having low or no oil and 
gas potential in the BLM and Forest Service land-use planning 
process. The bill also establishes a process to review and 
update future oil and gas resource projections. The Department 
supports the bill's goals to update the federal onshore oil and 
gas leasing program, and in short, it is serving in the best 
interest of the American taxpayer. We would appreciate the 
opportunity to work with the sponsor on a number of technical 
modifications to aid in the bill's implementation.
    S. 1214, the State Grazing Management Authority Act, 
requires the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 
cooperative agreements with states to administer grazing 
allotment management plans on federal lands. The Department 
shares the sponsor's interest in identifying opportunities for 
increasing efficiencies in grazing administration. However, the 
Department cannot support S. 1214, as it unduly limits the 
Federal Government's authority and ability to ensure 
appropriate stewardship of our nation's public lands.
    S. 1411, the Lander County Land Management and Conservation 
Act, conveys approximately 21,000 acres of federal lands to 
Lander County, Nevada. It also designates over 14,000 acres of 
wilderness and releases approximately 12,000 acres from 
wilderness study area status. The Department supports the 
conservation goals of 
S. 1411, and we would like to work with the sponsors on some 
modifications, including certain changes to the bill's 
conveyance provisions.
    S. 1459, the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by 
Investing in California Lands Act, or the PUBLIC Lands Act, 
designates nearly 600,000 acres of wilderness, including over 
97,000 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
and 31,000 acres of land managed by the National Park Service. 
The bill also would designate over 500 miles of wild and scenic 
rivers. S. 1459 aligns with the Administration's goal to 
conserve America's lands and waters. The Department of the 
Interior supports the bill.
    S. 1589, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act, would 
establish two new recreation areas encompassing nearly 130,000 
acres of BLM-managed public lands and expand the Wild Rogue 
Wilderness by adding approximately 60,000 acres of BLM-managed 
lands in western Oregon. The bill would also withdraw from 
mining approximately 101,000 acres of federal lands. The 
Department supports the sponsor's efforts to promote outdoor 
recreation, designate wilderness, and protect the Southwest 
Oregon watershed.
    S. 2130, the Reinvesting in Shoreline Economies and 
Ecosystems Act, dedicates a percentage of offshore wind 
revenues to the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, 
eliminates the cap on state revenue sharing under the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act, and increases the percentage of 
revenues shared with states. The Department supports efforts to 
advance offshore wind development as well as funding programs 
for increasing coastal adaptation and resilience to climate 
change. However, the Department would like to work with the 
Committee to address the impacts from diverting revenues 
necessary to carry out authorized activities.
    S. 2433, the Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act, or 
FLAIR Act, directs the Department to develop a multipurpose 
register of all federal real property assets and eliminate 
duplicative data systems across the Federal Government. The 
Department is working to update and modernize our land 
ownership information systems, and we support the provisions of 
the bill that align with those efforts.
    S. 2524--the Department has submitted a statement for the 
record on S. 2524, which would amend the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act concerning eligibility for certain need-based 
federal programs.
    The Department looks forward to continuing to work with the 
Committee and the Congress on the important public lands issues 
addressed in these bills. Thank you again for the opportunity 
to be here today. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Feldgus follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. French.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 
               FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE

    Mr. French. Thank you, Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 
Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Chris French, the 
Deputy Chief of the National U.S. Forest Service of the USDA, 
and I am here to provide the perspective of USDA on eight of 
the public land bills under consideration today.
    Our national forests and grasslands are critical to the 
well-being of our nation. They are an integral part of our 
forest-dependent communities and tribes, and provide a 
connection to nature for all Americans. The proposed bills 
before us today focus on national forest recreation 
opportunities, wilderness preservation, land management 
coordination, collaboration, grazing management, and natural 
resource science delivery.
    The Smith River National Recreation Area Expansion Act, the 
PUBLIC Lands Act, the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, and 
the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act all aim to expand and 
protect these valuable recreation assets. Recreation is the 
largest economic driver from our national forests and 
grasslands, delivering nearly $13.5 billion to America's gross 
domestic product and supporting over 160,000 full- and part-
time jobs. We manage nearly 30,000 recreation sites, the 
largest trail network in the nation, and host over 60 percent 
of the nation's downhill ski area visits. The number of 
recreation visits to the National Forest System rose to over 
168 million in 2020, an increase of nearly 12 percent since 
2019. And with COVID numbers improving, we look forward to 
offering more and more recreation opportunities this year, as 
our developed campgrounds and recreation sites continue to 
reopen across the country. The USDA Forest Service also manages 
more wilderness units than any other agency in the United 
States. Wilderness areas under the Department's jurisdiction 
are found in 39 states and in Puerto Rico.
    My written testimony provides specifics, but in general, 
the Smith River National Recreation Area Expansion Act would 
expand the Smith River National Recreation Area from northern 
California to encompass the North Fork of the Smith River 
Watershed in southwestern Oregon. USDA supports the goals of 
the bill. We would like to work with the Committee and the bill 
sponsors to clarify some timing and technical concerns 
associated with the proposed wild and scenic river 
designations.
    The PUBLIC Lands Act sets forth provisions concerning the 
restoration, economic development, conservation of, and 
recreation access to certain public lands in California. The 
USDA supports the goals of this act and would like to work with 
the Subcommittee and bill sponsor to address some technical and 
timing concerns to improve the legislation and make further 
future management of designated areas more efficient and 
feasible.
    The Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act would expand an 
existing wilderness boundary and establish two national 
recreation areas. USDA defers to the Department of the Interior 
on the establishment of the national recreation areas and 
wilderness expansion on DOI lands. In addition, the bill would 
permanently withdraw two areas of federal land from mining, 
including more than 95,000 acres of National Forest System 
lands. USDA supports these withdrawals.
    The Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act is a multifaceted 
bill affecting the Lolo National Forest in Montana. We share 
Senator Tester's respect for and commitment to collaboration, 
and the Forest Service is working with and will continue to 
work with the bill's sponsor on modifications to ensure that 
the implementation of the bill is achievable.
    We have seen again this year a wildfire season and a crisis 
that we cannot ignore. We must address the crisis at the scale 
of the problem so we can bring long-term relief to our 
firefighters, our communities, and our forests. 2020 was one of 
the most devastating fire seasons on record, burning more than 
ten million acres and resulting in the loss of too many lives. 
This year, that trend continued, and I have personally seen 
firsthand the tragic aftermath of wildfires as well as the 
efficacies of our wildfire risk reduction treatments in and 
around the areas of Lake Tahoe. For that reason, USDA supports 
the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act.
    Protecting our nation's forests also means ensuring land 
ownership patterns meet the needs of communities, protect our 
natural resources, and facilitate effective land management. 
The Lander County Land Management and Conservation Act proposes 
five land conveyances of National Forest System land. USDA 
supports the intent of the act, and we would be happy to work 
with the bill sponsors on technical concerns.
    The Arizona Experiment Station Land Conveyance Act of 2021 
directs the Forest Service to convey 13.3 acres of National 
Forest System lands as well as an easement on a Forest Service 
road to the Arizona Board of Regents. We would like to work 
with the bill sponsor to explore ways to support this research 
asset while providing for the best management of the forest.
    Finally, a cornerstone of protecting the health and 
productivity of our nation's forests is carrying out our 
multiple-use mandate. The State Grazing Management Authority 
Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 
of Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements with states 
to provide for state administration of grazing allotments. USDA 
does not support the bill as currently drafted.
    That concludes my remarks on these bills and I look forward 
to answering any of the Committee's questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you to both panel witnesses. 
Now we will begin the five minutes of questioning from the 
Senators. I will begin.
    Dr. Feldgus, let me start with you, and this is in 
reference to my legislation, S. 607, the End Speculative Oil 
and Gas Leasing Act. BLM's federal onshore oil and gas program 
allows oil and gas companies to pursue speculative leasing on 
public lands that do not have any actual drilling potential. 
This issue is increasingly problematic in Nevada. In fact, the 
BLM leased 6.9 million acres of federal lands in Nevada from 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2020, yet only 39 wells were drilled 
during that period. And let me just say, by comparison, I know 
in New Mexico, where the development potential tends to be much 
higher, BLM leased just over 68,000 acres between that same 
time period and nearly 11,000 wells were drilled.
    So when public lands are leased so indiscriminately in 
Nevada and other places with little drilling potential, that 
limits BLM's ability to manage for other activities like 
hunting, fishing, and other purposes. And it seems to me that 
dealing with all of these speculative leases is also a terrible 
waste of BLM's time and taxpayer resources, particularly when 
it rarely leads to actual drilling. So my question to you is, 
how does the leasing of low- and no-
potential lands negatively impact other land uses, and do you 
agree that if there is low or no potential, there is a better 
use for BLM's time and efforts in other areas instead of these 
areas where there is low potential impact for drilling?
    Dr. Feldgus. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for the 
question. We are very concerned with the leasing of low- or no-
potential lands and speculative leasing at the Department of 
the Interior. It is, as you mention, a hindrance to effective 
public land management, as it does block other potential uses 
or other conservation designations of those lands, and we do 
not believe that it is an effective use of taxpayer resources, 
or that it provides a good return to the American taxpayer. As 
you pointed out, there is quite a bit of effort that goes in 
from the BLM to analyzing these parcels when they are 
nominated, and I will just point out that companies do not need 
to pay a fee in order to nominate these lands. They don't have 
to undergo a very extensive environmental review process--
public comments, there is a protest period and so on. And a 
recent GAO report found that only 1.2 percent of all the non-
competitive leases that have been issued within a certain time 
period had any oil and gas production from them during their 
primary term.
    And it is exactly these low- or no-potential lands that get 
these non-competitive leases where literally companies do not 
have to pay a bonus bid. The leases are available for two 
years, over-the-counter, just for the price of the first-year 
rent. So we do not think that is a fair return for the American 
taxpayer, and also, it creates a lot of uncertainty for local 
communities not knowing whether or not these lands are going to 
be leased, by whom, and if they will be developed at all.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. French, as you know, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 
established programs at the lake pertaining to wildfire risk 
reduction and forest management. It also includes aquatic 
invasive species control, storm water management, erosion 
projects, and of course, the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery 
program. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of 
these programs and how they have developed and been maintained 
over the years? And please also talk about the fact that the 
existing authorization for the Restoration Act expires in 2024, 
but we are looking for a long-term--at least a 10-year 
authorization. Why is that important as we are looking to 
manage these programs?
    Mr. French. Yes, I think one of the things to think about 
here is, especially when we see successes like we have in and 
around Lake Tahoe with this law, is that it integrates a number 
of outcomes and resources and allows us in a collaborative way 
to do more streamlined work to essentially protect the lake. We 
are just getting going. There is a lot more to do and we have 
seen the benefits of that. We have maintained the quality of 
the experience and of the water in the lake, as well as 
protecting the communities through a number of wildland fire 
risk reduction projects across Lake Tahoe. It is tiered to a 
broad, multi-jurisdictional strategy and we have another ten or 
so years to go to fully implement that.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. I would like to start out by asking 
both of you, have either of you heard of the Three Creeks 
Grazing project that I referred to earlier? Does that ring any 
bells?
    Dr. Feldgus. No, I have not.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    As I said in my opening statement, the increased 
flexibility in grazing afforded by operating on private lands 
allowed these operations to achieve a doubling of the same 
stocking rate that was available on neighboring grazing 
allotments. It is something that I would love to see occur--
love to see that have some ability to be replicated on our 
federal lands, especially given that so much of the land in my 
state is federal. As you may be aware, we are facing a lot of 
significant challenges right now in the livestock industry from 
foreign markets, and due to a combination of other factors, 
including weather patterns, droughts and so forth, and I am 
deeply committed to helping my constituents remain competitive.
    Now, I often hear from ranchers who are frustrated because 
of the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, as the 
case may be from one parcel to another, that either the Forest 
Service or the BLM is somehow unable to perform necessary work 
on rangeland due to time-consuming and costly regulatory 
requirements, or because of fear of litigation. In many cases, 
the local field office of the Forest Service or of the BLM will 
agree that the work in question needs to be done, but for one 
reason or another, they cannot. Do you agree, and I will ask 
this question of both of you, do you agree that range 
conditions could be improved if your agencies and local 
stakeholders had more flexibility to work together to complete 
projects? We will start with you, Dr. Feldgus.
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you, Senator.
    Well, I would agree that we support the goal of increasing 
efficiency in grazing management and grazing administration, 
and the Bureau of Land Management is attempting to use more 
flexibility, and taking advantage of programs like the outcome-
based grazing authorizations, which allow for that flexibility 
to take into account changing conditions, whether it is 
additional rainfall or more drought or wildfire conditions. So 
that is something that BLM has been doing since early 2018 on a 
number of pilot projects, and it is using the results of that 
in order to inform future grazing practices.
    Senator Lee. How about you, Mr. French?
    Mr. French. I would agree that a collaborative and more 
flexible approach to creating outcomes of our grazing program 
is helpful. But I would also say, I think, that probably the 
biggest barrier for us to achieve some of the work that you 
talked about generally just is probably lack of capacity. Our 
non-fire workforce across the agency has diminished by almost 
40 percent in the last 15 years, mainly due to suppression of 
wildfires. I think that is probably the biggest driver we have 
seen of some of the outcomes we talk about.
    Senator Lee. Yes, biggest single driver both in terms of 
the resources that you have to commit to dealing with those, 
and then also in some cases, degrading the rangeland because of 
the wildfires that----
    Mr. French. Yes, I mean, that certainly occurs, but I think 
just having the right staffing to be able to do the work that 
you talk about is probably our biggest challenge.
    Senator Lee. Right. When you are stretched thin like that, 
I would imagine it would be tempting to think it sure would be 
good if we had additional resources--additional human 
resources--you know, within the Forest Service, within the 
Bureau of Land Management. I would imagine also that it could 
be helpful to have states, in the event that we have 
legislation in place, that would allow for more of this. It 
could be helpful to be able to rely on states with an interest 
in managing the same rangeland and doing so in an 
environmentally responsible fashion.
    I assume you are not in a position to comment on that given 
the nature of what we are discussing, but it does occur to me, 
you are stretched thin. In both of your offices, you are asked 
to do a lot and you are able to do a lot of things. You cannot 
do everything, and in some cases your resources are stretched 
thin due to natural circumstances, due to budgetary 
constraints, the finite nature of your human resource assets, 
but also because of inflexibilities imposed by federal 
regulations. So my legislation, I think, would go a long way 
toward helping that. I would love it if you would take a look 
at it.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chair Cortez Masto, and I 
think I want to start by just mentioning that we hear a lot 
about federal ownership of land on this Committee, and I really 
don't view it that way. I think you all, as federal agencies, 
have a trust responsibility to take care of the public land 
that belongs to my constituents and every single American in 
this country. And so I want to just start by thanking both of 
you for taking that responsibility seriously and for being here 
today as part of that responsibility.
    I want to start, Dr. Feldgus, with, when making decisions 
about a resource management plan (RMP), does the BLM consider 
the impacts of activities--gravel mining just being one example 
with today's legislation--on adjacent neighboring communities, 
and then how does the BLM weigh those potential impacts against 
other goals in that plan and compare those out in the resource 
management plan process?
    Dr. Feldgus. Absolutely, Senator, thank you for the 
question. The BLM takes the views of local communities very 
strongly in the resource management planning process, and that 
is one of the hallmarks of the RMP process, is the public 
participation component of that--listening to local 
communities, consultation with tribes, taking a variety of 
viewpoints into account. And the BLM believes that conservation 
measures that reflect the interests of local communities are 
the ones that are the most efficient and effective in the long 
term, because they are the people who work on those lands, play 
on those lands, care about those lands and----
    Senator Heinrich. Often the most durable.
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, exactly. Those are the ones that last 
longest.
    Senator Heinrich. When do we think we can expect the Rio 
Puerco resource management plan to get finalized? That will do 
a lot to allay the concerns that precipitated this legislation 
in the first place with respect to the Buffalo Tract.
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a date 
for when that plan would be finalized but it will be fairly 
soon.
    Senator Heinrich. Days, months, or years? Pick one.
    Dr. Feldgus. I will get back to BLM and we will come back 
to you with a more precise date.
    Senator Heinrich. I would appreciate that.
    Mr. French, because we are talking today about Blackfoot 
Clearwater and Montana, I want to raise another issue. I had 
called Chief Moore and have not received a call back with 
respect to the situation in the Crazy Mountains. That is on the 
Custer Gallatin National Forest, but my understanding is that 
the Forest Service is no longer defending the prescriptive 
easements that have existed there for roughly a century now, 
and that concerns me because if we are not defending the 
prescriptive easements that the public uses to access their 
public lands after a century in Montana, I worry about that 
spreading to New Mexico and other places as well. So I would 
just appreciate information back as you look into that on what 
the rationale is and what can be done there on the Custer 
Gallatin.
    Mr. French. Yes, Senator Heinrich, and I will ensure that 
Chief Moore follows up. You know, I know that situation well. 
We have looked at it. It is incredibly important for us to 
defend those prescriptive rights. We haven't changed our 
position. At the end of the day, it comes down to if the 
evidence is there to defend those rights, and we take that 
consideration on each one of these cases. On a broad scale, it 
is very important for us as an agency to defend those rights 
across the West.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
    Dr. Feldgus, I want to go back to a separate piece of 
legislation--The Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act, which 
requires Interior to develop a single accessible record of 
federal land and property. Can you just take a minute and 
explain to the Committee and to the public how the Federal 
Government currently keeps track of all of its real property?
    Dr. Feldgus. Certainly, Senator, thank you for the 
question.
    It is a very large job. There is quite a bit of real 
property across numerous dozens of agencies and we certainly 
agree with the goal of trying to make this much easier for 
people to access and make the different agencies' systems more 
interoperable, and right now that is an issue that we certainly 
have problems with. But something that the Federal Geographic 
Data Committee is working on is trying to develop better 
interoperability standards for agencies. So we agree that 
improvements can be made in federal real property data and we 
are working to make those.
    Senator Heinrich. Let us know, as Committee members, as we 
develop this legislation, but also just more broadly, how we 
can be helpful, because it is very, very opaque to the public 
to be able to sort of see into which agencies own what land. 
What the access ramifications of that are, for example, has 
enormous access ramifications for people who hunt, fish, 
recreate, and we need to make that more transparent to the 
public. So I look forward to working with you on that.
    Dr. Feldgus. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Feldgus, the Department is opposing the bill which I am 
interested in, S. 2130, the RISEE Act, and I am intrigued by 
this. On the one hand, the Department says they are committed 
to promoting resiliency. On the other hand, they find reasons 
not to support this. So I'll break it down into two reasons 
that I see. The first is that it creates dependency upon energy 
revenue for resilience and the other is the cost to the federal 
treasury.
    Dr. Feldgus, are you aware of what Louisiana's coastal 
restoration project is?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, I am, Senator.
    Senator Cassidy. And you are aware that it is a series of 
construction projects. It is not a mandatory entitlement 
program, which, if you have a funding stream and the funding 
stream goes away, you have to find out another way in which to 
pay for the mandatory entitlement, correct? It is a 
construction project. So when you define dependency, do you 
mean as in it is not sustainable, like the construction project 
which is only contracted out for when you have the money in the 
bank, and somehow it will not be able to be completed if future 
sources of revenue are not coming? I am not following, because 
it seems like the sustainability aspect of the funding does not 
comport with the fact that these are well-defined projects.
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure, well, Senator, we support the effort 
Louisiana is making in restoring and rebuilding its coastline 
and----
    Senator Cassidy. That is empty rhetoric unless there is 
money, just to say that, but please continue.
    Dr. Feldgus. Understood.
    I think the issue with the RISEE Act is simply the matter 
of equity for all the states from federal revenues.
    Senator Cassidy. So let me ask. Onshore states, say New 
Mexico, get 50 percent of the revenue from revenue sharing--
maybe 48, maybe 50 of the revenue sharing, and there is no cap 
on it. There is a cap and there is a limit upon--it is 37.5--
there is a cap upon what the Gulf Coast States receive. Now, 
you do not mention equity in your statement, by the way, but if 
you bring up equity, I will just say parenthetically, it seems 
like equity would be for the coastal states to receive the same 
deal as the onshore states. That is certainly inequitable.
    But let me ask as well because I want to go through the 
things that are actually listed as the reasons to oppose. You 
mentioned the impact upon the federal treasury, which the score 
is going to be roughly $10 billion over 10 years. Are you 
familiar with the CBO report that estimates it will be a $17 
billion annual cost to the federal treasury to pay for 
hurricane damage, flooding, and wind on the coastline of 
principally the Gulf Coast, but elsewhere as well? Are you 
familiar with that CBO study?
    Dr. Feldgus. I am not familiar with that specific report.
    Senator Cassidy. So if it is $17 billion over 10 years, 
that is $170 billion as opposed to investing $10 billion over 
10 years in order to attempt to mitigate. Now, when you do the 
analysis for the federal fisc, are you only looking at outlays 
that would be related to the dollars being more coastally 
distributed, or are you also taking into account what the CBO 
says would be the impact? Apparently not.
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, the testimony deals with the direct 
score, the hit to miscellaneous receipts to the treasury from 
the impact of the bill. Certainly, we support----
    Senator Cassidy. So the Interior Department does not take 
into account that if you build in resiliency as the levees 
around New Orleans just showed you can do, in which they held--
the ground was dry. You didn't flood and didn't have the 
hundred and whatever billion dollars of repair that took place 
after that. This analysis does not take that into account, 
correct?
    Dr. Feldgus. The dollar value does not include that.
    Senator Cassidy. Does it seem reasonable that it could be 
taken into account, that maybe that you take into account that 
the avoided cost of damage from hurricanes would be a more 
fulsome, in fact, more accurate way to analyze this bill?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I certainly think we want to have that 
conversation about all of the revenues that are going to be 
involved for coastal restoration and resilience, especially 
with the impacts of climate change increasing every year, but I 
think it is a much larger conversation.
    Senator Cassidy. I think it is, but it should be part of 
this, should it not? Because how do we fund resiliency if we 
don't start funding resiliency? It's a little bit kind of like 
``we are all for you, but you are not going to get a dime until 
you get flooded out and your community destroyed, then we will 
come in and rescue you.'' We don't want that. If we have a 
flood we do, but we actually want to keep it from happening in 
the first place. I am not sure of the Administration's position 
on this because it seems not only short-sighted, but also hard-
hearted.
    Any thoughts on that?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I would say the Administration feels, I 
mean, our hearts go out to everyone who was impacted by the 
hurricanes and every natural disaster. Certainly, we have a lot 
of staff in the Gulf region. In Louisiana, BOEM and BSEE both 
have huge staff presences in New Orleans and in the district 
offices along the coast, so they are directly impacted by 
these, and a lot of our employees were forced to evacuate, have 
their lives and their families' lives put in danger from the 
most recent storms and ones going back decades. So we care 
deeply about the impacts on their lives and the lives of 
everyone in that region.
    Senator Cassidy. I appreciate that concern. I would say, 
not to diminish your concern, but until you start looking at 
the impact to the federal fisc of not doing anything except 
pick up the pieces after the disaster, that concern rings a 
little hollow.
    With that, I yield.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Well, to pick up where Senator Cassidy left 
off, we are talking about existing oil and gas exploration and 
it is already current law that that money is apportioned 
according to the current statute. Does the Administration 
believe that revenues from offshore wind should also be 
apportioned in some similar way before we get to the amounts? 
In other words, do you believe that offshore wind should have 
similar treatment?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, the Department would like to see 
revenues from offshore wind used to support offshore wind and 
also mitigating the impacts of offshore wind and also building 
partnerships among states and other stakeholders, and engaging 
in tribal consultation.
    Senator King. But everything you just said would lead me to 
believe that that money should flow through the coastal states 
where that kind of work would take place.
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I think it depends on what specific 
restrictions are placed on the use of the money that would go 
to the states and----
    Senator King. Well, I guess what I am trying to get at--is 
your problem with the percentages or the concept? Do you 
support the concept of revenue sharing from offshore wind 
revenues? Yes or no?
    Dr. Feldgus. I would say the Department does not have a 
position on that yet.
    Senator King. Okay. And so then we get to the question of 
what are the percentages. Last week, the Administration 
announced quite a broad vision for offshore wind. Doesn't it 
make sense to have legislation on the revenue impacts of this 
and the sharing before we embark upon these kinds of 
investments?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, we are very eager to have that 
conversation about the use of offshore wind revenues. As you 
pointed out, there was a large expansion of offshore wind 
leasing announcement just last week.
    Senator King. Right.
    Dr. Feldgus. And for those revenues coming in, I think the 
Department believes that those would be best used in helping do 
the work to make sure that those permits can be processed in a 
timely manner, that any impacts from offshore wind are 
mitigated properly, that the conversations are occurring 
between all the stakeholders that are affected.
    Senator King. So I'm sorry, but I'm confused because we 
keep coming back to who is going to do the mitigation, for 
example. Aren't the states that are most directly impacted the 
ones that would logically be working on the mitigation?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I think that is an open question--
exactly how the mitigation would work.
    Senator King. So does the Administration have a plan for 
allocating revenues from offshore wind at all, or it just goes 
into the treasury?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, currently it just goes into the 
treasury.
    Senator King. Are you interested in discussions to try to 
resolve this issue, because there are those of us that feel 
this just does not make sense. You have a statute over here 
that has been in place for years on oil and gas revenues. You 
have a new set of revenues and you are saying, well, we are 
just not going to talk about that. Is there room for discussion 
here?
    Dr. Feldgus. Absolutely. I do not want to give the 
impression that we are not interested in that conversation. We 
absolutely want to discuss the best use of these revenues.
    Senator King. And then finally, I want to emphasize the 
point that Senator Cassidy just made that talking about 
mitigation and resiliency is a hell of a lot cheaper than 
talking about rebuilding after a disaster on the oil and gas 
side and talking about resiliency and building up onshore 
resources--mitigating effects on fishermen, for example. That 
is something that we should be talking about in advance. It 
just seems to me it is cart before the horse to be talking 
about a vast expansion of offshore wind without talking about 
where the revenues are going to go. And to me, it is exactly 
analogous. It is energy development offshore, and therefore, 
the revenue should go, in some percentages, similar to the 
percentages that are attributable to oil and gas.
    Do you--I mean, I am trying to get some agreement on the 
concept.
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I mean, I will certainly, as I said, we 
are eager to work with you and the Committee to come up with 
the best use for offshore wind revenues. We are eager to have 
that discussion as to how they could be used both to further 
our goals of expanding offshore wind development and also 
making sure that any impacts from that are properly mitigated.
    Senator King. Well, I will look forward to working with you 
over the next several weeks to define the word ``eager.''
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Thank you.
    I want to be very, very clear. I very much support this 
legislation that Senator Cassidy, Senator Whitehouse, and 
Senator King have all put so much effort into and I do think 
there is an equity issue here. We just haven't done enough for 
our coastlines and our oceans. And I think the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is a great model, and this seems to be 
roughly analogous to that sort of approach. I hope the 
Administration will not take its foot off the accelerator at 
all on offshore wind. That is a key part of how we deal with 
some of the climate impacts that we are already seeing.
    Senator Hyde-Smith is next and will be followed by Senator 
Wyden.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Revenues from offshore energy production are the source of 
our sustainable dollars in the Gulf Coast for all of our 
programs for the coastal conservation, storm protection, 
hurricane protection, and the restoration, and Senator Cassidy 
alluded to how well these preventions worked during Hurricane 
Ida surrounding the city of New Orleans. But states with inland 
oil and gas production are rightly entitled to the 50 percent 
of the associated federal revenues generated that are derived 
from resources which belong to the entire nation and not just 
any one state.
    Dr. Feldgus, would you agree that Gulf Coast States like 
Mississippi and like Louisiana should receive the same benefits 
from energy produced on federal holdings within their 
boundaries as the benefits received by energy produced in 
onshore and landlocked states, and why or why not?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I would say that any energy produced 
within the boundary of the state of Mississippi is shared with 
the state of Mississippi in the same manner as the other 
states.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. And if revenue from offshore oil and 
gas leases is going to be used to fund projects outside of the 
Gulf Coast, then Gulf Coast States should at least have similar 
revenue sharing parity with onshore oil and gas leases, and I 
am very proud to promote such legislation as the RISEE Act, and 
I certainly hope you will reconsider this because this is 
beyond an ounce of prevention. So thank you for your testimony.
    Senator Heinrich. Senator Wyden.
    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have to be on 
the Floor in a few minutes for a response to Senator Scott, and 
I just want to thank you and our colleagues for holding this 
hearing because it is going to be one that considers 
legislation Senator Merkley and I have proposed to protect and 
enhance some of Oregon's most iconic recreation destinations--
the Rogue, the Smith, and the Molalla Rivers. We have S. 1589, 
the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act, that would establish two 
new recreational areas along the Rogue and the Molalla Rivers, 
two of our most iconic salmon and steelhead streams. More and 
more, Oregonians are concerned about losing treasured places to 
wildfires, especially after the last two devastating wildfire 
seasons. Based on the local input that we have gotten, S. 1589 
creates a new approach to the growing threats of wildfires by 
requiring the Bureau of Land Management to take preemptive 
steps to reduce wildfire risks in the new recreation areas, 
including the construction of temporary roads for public 
safety. The bill is about the three R's: recreation, risk 
reduction for fires, and especially about protecting our 
treasures--our treasured recreation areas.
    S. 1589 also permanently protects the pristine waters of 
the Smith and Illinois Rivers, a source of clean drinking water 
in southwestern Oregon, from hazardous mining. In 2017, the 
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management issued a 
temporary 20-year ban on new mining claims, and then mineral 
withdrawal has seen widespread support from hundreds of local 
businesses, organizations, and tribes in the region, and this 
bill would make the ban permanent. Of more than 45,000 public 
comments received by the Forest Service and BLM, 99 percent 
were in support. I would like to enter into the record 20 
letters and resolutions in support of this section of the bill 
and the permanent ban.
    Senator Heinrich. Without objection.
    Senator Wyden. Great.
    [The letters and resolutions for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Wyden. And I will just close by saying the bill 
builds on Oregon's traditional conservation ethic that has been 
fundamental to the livability of our state. When you are 
talking about fire risk reduction and conservation, we believe 
those two are compatible, and we believe that the agencies 
working with us can put this together expeditiously, and we 
look forward to support.
    Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Senator Kelly, and then we will see if 
there is interest in a second round.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Feldgus, thank you for your testimony on S. 528, the La 
Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act. Senator Sinema 
and I introduced this bill because it could lead to the largest 
solar project in the nation in terms of its electricity 
production. The bill would transfer 4,800 acres of land 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management to La Paz County 
to complete a proposed 1,500 megawatt PV solar facility that 
includes battery storage. This is enough energy to power 
roughly a half a million homes. The La Paz project would tie 
into the proposed Ten West transmission line, which is designed 
to move renewable energy between Arizona and California.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to add to the 
record written testimony from La Paz County and the Colorado 
River Indian Tribes, who support this legislation.
    Senator Heinrich. Without objection.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    [The written testimony of La Paz County and the Colorado 
River Indian Tribes follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Kelly. Dr. Feldgus, how would the 1,500 megawatts 
of solar capacity at La Paz compare to the total amount of 
solar capacity on BLM land today?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, right now, as of May, there are 37 solar 
projects that have been approved on BLM land with a total 
capacity of over 7,000 megawatts.
    Senator Kelly. So this is a significant addition?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes.
    Senator Kelly. And how would you describe BLM's track 
record on permitting solar projects?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, as part of President Biden's goal to get 
to a carbon free electricity sector by 2035, and in support of 
the Energy Act of 2020's goal of permitting 25 gigawatts of 
renewable energy on public lands by 2025, the Department and 
the Bureau of Land Management are taking steps to improve their 
permitting processes all the time, looking to make processes 
more efficient and effective for applicants and for local 
communities and improving consultation with tribes and taking 
into account all of the different factors that we need to on 
multiple-use land.
    Just a few months ago, the Bureau of Land Management held 
some listening sessions to kick off the process of reviewing 
the renewable energy regulations. So we listened to a variety 
of stakeholders from across the spectrum--local communities, 
tribes, scientists, landowners, and we are currently in the 
process of working on new regulations to improve the efficiency 
of the process.
    Senator Kelly. So is it your opinion that this transfer of 
land to La Paz County would be a more expeditious process?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, right now, I understand there is a 
permit application for solar on those lands currently. So we 
are concurrently moving that permit through the process while 
Congress considers legislation.
    Senator Kelly. Well, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Feldgus.
    Mr. French, thank you for your testimony today. I want to 
respond to the written testimony submitted by the Forest 
Service on my bill, S. 1631. This bill would transfer 13 acres 
of Forest Service land to the University of Arizona for its new 
school of veterinary sciences program. In its written 
testimony, the Forest Service says it opposes the bill over two 
issues that I would like to correct for the record. The first 
is, the Forest Service was concerned that the university could 
sell the land to developers. The bill S. 1631 is clear that 
land would revert back to the Forest Service if the University 
of Arizona ever ceased to use it for the veterinary program. 
And then second, the Forest Service was concerned that the land 
would become an isolated parcel of private land inside Coconino 
National Forest. Again, the bill is clear that the 13-acre 
parcel would not be a private inholding. It is a ranch house 
that is contiguous to an existing working ranch owned and 
operated by the university. The ranch house is where students 
will live for several weeks as they learn how to care for 
livestock. So it is not isolated within the national forest.
    So Mr. French, could you please direct the leadership at 
Coconino National Forest to meet with the University of Arizona 
to clear up this misunderstanding about the bill?
    Mr. French. Yes, I would be happy to.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you and I yield back.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Chairman Heinrich, thank you.
    I want to begin by acknowledging and commending the 
proponents of the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act for 
their collaborative efforts over a course of many years. 
Montana is called the last best place because of the very 
landscapes and the unique outdoor opportunities this bill seeks 
to protect. I have heard from Montanans across the state on 
this proposal. I have heard support for it. I have heard some 
concerns. That is not unusual when you have proposals like 
this. I continue to hear from our local communities, ranchers, 
sportsmen, land managers, and outdoor recreationists that the 
bill does not adequately support increased access to additional 
public lands across our state. Specifically, I hear great 
frustration that this proposal designates 80,000 acres of new 
wilderness while over one million acres of wilderness study 
areas remain in limbo, managed, in fact as de facto wilderness, 
despite not being designated as wilderness by Congress.
    I want to be clear that I support wilderness designations 
when they are fully supported by the local community, 
stakeholders, and the best available science. I believe we 
could do better to put forward a more balanced product that 
more Montanans can get behind. I think there should be a 
balance between preserving areas deemed suitable for wilderness 
while also allowing Montanans to make appropriate use of lands 
deemed not suitable for wilderness. In fact, over one million 
acres of public lands have been locked up in wilderness study 
areas for decades--some 40 years. And just over 780,000 acres 
were recommended to be returned to broader public use.
    It is in the name itself. They call them wilderness study 
areas. These are areas that were meant to be studied and then 
resolved by Congress. And all these acres have been studied. 
They have gone through a robust public process, and about two-
thirds has been determined to be not suitable for wilderness, 
but Congress hasn't acted. About 300,000 acres have been most 
recently prioritized by local leaders, stakeholders, the state 
legislature, and federal agencies to be returned to broader 
public use. These have gone through a very robust public 
comment period in recent BLM or Forest Service plans. They have 
strong local support. They have strong stakeholder support and 
they should be returned to broader public use. In fact, in a 
letter the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation sent regarding the 
Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship project, they said that 
approval of this bill--in referencing the Blackfoot Clearwater 
Stewardship project--approval of this bill should also 
correspond with release of certain wilderness study areas in 
Montana and that redesignation into other categories that would 
accommodate forest stewardship, travel management, and 
proactive wildlife habitat management to address the epidemic 
of tree mortality. I think that is a pretty balanced approach.
    I can tell you that Montanans are tired of continued 
Washington, DC inaction and they are tired of losing out on 
outdoor opportunities while land managers' hands are tied. The 
Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act designates new wilderness, 
but without making a dent on the backlog of acres determined 
unsuitable for wilderness many decades ago. I intend to 
introduce legislation in the coming weeks to release certain 
wilderness study areas deemed not suitable for wilderness. And 
I want to urge the Chair and the Ranking Member that this bill, 
the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship project, would only move 
forward as part of that larger, more balanced effort.
    Mr. French, forest plans and land management plans include 
recommendations on the suitability of land for wilderness. 
These plans also include management prescriptions. The land 
should be returned to public use. Could you speak to the 
collaborative process and local engagement your agencies employ 
when developing such plans?
    Mr. French. It is extensive. The 2012 planning rule that 
guides this process is a multi-year collaborative public 
engagement process that specifically looks at what areas should 
be considered to be recommended to Congress for inclusion in 
the Wilderness Preservation System or not.
    Senator Daines. Well, I know you could never please 
everybody. None of us on Capitol Hill ever could, or serving in 
public service. Is it fair to say that the plans produced by 
your agency have broad, local buy-in, and are you aware of any 
other planning process that provides more of an opportunity for 
public engagement than what you are currently doing?
    Mr. French. It is extensive, and we strive to get as much 
local public buy-in and broad buy-in as possible for a durable 
decision. On your second question, I am not aware of any, but 
there could be.
    Senator Daines. Yes. Well, I tend to agree with that, and 
we get a lot of public input in that process, which is why I 
believe that recommendations made in these plans should be 
acted upon. Mr. French, what flexibilities does returning 
wilderness study areas to general management in the National 
Forest System give land managers on the ground to perform 
conservation work?
    Mr. French. Well, when we recommend an area for wilderness 
study or as recommended wilderness, generally, we will maintain 
the characteristics of why we are recommending it. And so we 
are going to manage it in a way that does not diminish 
wilderness attributes and characteristics. If an area is not 
acted on in Congress, and in fact, if Congress says ``no, this 
wilderness study area or this recommendation, we are not acting 
on,'' and returns it back to general management, then what that 
would create for us is a broader multiple-use approach to that 
landscape. And that can be in terms of recreation, like the 
classic one there might be allowing mountain bikes, or not 
allowing mountain bikes, or the way we approach our fuels work 
from just using prescribed fire or using a combination of 
prescribed fire and maybe some mechanical treatments. Those are 
the sorts of flexibilities that you would see.
    Senator Daines. Let me just close by saying this. Over the 
last four decades, there have been 1.8 million acres of new 
wilderness designated by Congress in Montana, but only 150,000 
acres of our public lands returned to broader public use, even 
though hundreds of thousands of acres have been determined 
unsuitable for wilderness following the process that he just 
described with input. I can tell you, Montanans are tired of 
going through the process of studying with them 40 years and 
providing input in these areas and then not seeing much if any 
action or resolution. I think this imbalance and inaction is 
unacceptable. I am determined to fix it and I think we have a 
chance to do that here with this legislation that is before us.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator.
    Thank you both today for your testimony and for your 
commitment to our public lands, and with that, our hearing 
today is adjourned.
    Oh, Senator King, go right ahead if you want to do a second 
round.
    Senator King. Well, I just wanted to ask Senator Daines. I 
am a little unclear on your position on the the Blackfoot 
Clearwater Stewardship Act. Are you supportive of that, and 
with modifications? Where are we on that?
    Senator Daines. Yes, Senator King, the Blackfoot Clearwater 
Stewardship project has been a good example of collaboration 
bringing various stakeholders together. It provides about 
80,000 acres of additional wilderness in Montana. I would like 
to see it in a broader package that would see release of some 
of these study areas as deemed, as the Forest Service, as Mr. 
French described, after it has gone through a robust public 
input process, as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation states, 
that we return that back to just general use in the Forest 
Service, because what happens today is wilderness study areas 
get treated as de facto wilderness areas.
    Senator King. Right.
    Senator Daines. Even though they have been studied and 
deemed not suitable for wilderness. So what I would like to see 
is that balance. If we are going to add 80,000 acres of 
wilderness, let's have some kind of a corresponding release of 
study areas back to general public use.
    Senator King. And Mr. French, your position on this bill is 
that it is basically a good bill but there are modifications 
the Department would like to see made, is that correct?
    Mr. French. Yes, but those are separate than the issue that 
Senator Daines has brought forward. They are more in 
implementability.
    Senator King. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator King.
    Members of the Committee may submit additional questions in 
writing, and if so we will ask you to submit answers for the 
record. Committee members will have until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow to 
submit additional questions for the record. We will keep the 
hearing record open for two weeks to receive any additional 
comments.
    Thank you all again, and this hearing is closed.
    [Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]